FT35

Great article below gives us a little reminder. If you don't have a rookie year like Bellinger and Judge--you're most likely going to be a complete failure...but there still might be some faint hope! https://www.azsnakepit.com/2012/4/11/293884...ers-cooperstown

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Aug 11, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) I have to admit I was worried after the first 10 games or so that he was going to have trouble gearing up for MLB fastballs. Let's just say, after he ripped a 99 and 95 mph fastball for the HR and walkoff last night those fears are greatly diminished. Glad to see him pick himself back up after a tough stretch in the middle of the game as well when he struck out with RISP and dropped a surefire double play ball. Love your posts and certainly don't mean any offense by my thought and don't really aim this to entirely to you, but I always thought it was interesting how people could take such a small sample size out of such a long season on a player so young and let themselves make general assumptions about that player's success. During his development years, there were COUNTLESS 10 game periods (roughly 30 ab's) when Paulie couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if you held it still for him and he turned out to be a pretty decent fastball hitter. It's the story of slumps...some all-star caliber players stay in them for weeks. Some start their career with a long one. Maybe it's just because there have been so many "top prospects" to bust--people already sit high on the skepticism meter on new players. To me it takes 3-4 abysmal YEARS of being in and out of the lineup, up and down between MLB and MiLB for me to start wondering if someone just can't adjust to MLB pitching. In other words, the Gordon Beckham story! Even then, there's been too many cases where a player figures it out later to end up being able to contribute on an MLB team. 30 at bats though...10 games...whatever--that's tough! Mike Trout was 4 for his first 30 (.133) with 8k's. With us--Moncada was 4 for his first 30 (.133) with 11k's. Someone with Moncada's hype got hyped because he CAN turn gear up for MLB caliber pitching. Just because he hasn't done it in the MLB games doesn't mean he hasn't hit his fair shares of 99mph fastballs between pitching machines and facing some of the top talent in the game at the minor/international level. I'd be more concerned if he couldn't hit a change-up--but even then, I'd give him a few years before I assume he would perpetually struggle with them.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:21 PM) This series is so baseball, of course we would be dominating the Astros. Was just thinking this! This would be the type of series we would lose if we were searching for wins up against a tanking team.

QUOTE (Scoots @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:07 PM) Nicky is all of a sudden my favorite player haha I could get in on that too! Just has the look of a gamer...love the intensity he plays with and his aggressive short, compact swing. That grinder approach is contagious too.

I realize the tank is on and the bullpen has yet to enter tonight's game...but it feels extra nice to string some decent play together against Houston. Would love to hang a series loss on them.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 06:23 PM) Did he look anything like the old Ravens coach Brian Billick? It was uncanny...in fact, I was asking him why he decided to move the team to Indy when he told me he wasn't Brian Billick but instead "Steve Johnson." I thought...yeah right...

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 01:18 PM) I once drunkingly told someone I didn't want to talk to that my name was Steve Johnson. Crap...I once talked to a guy at a bar...said his name was "Steve Johnson." I'm putting the pieces together now... : /

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 02:23 PM) Obviously the DH and the DL creates some space to drop people, and not all of those guys are going to be successful, but if you get 1 successful big leaguer out of them by giving them playing time and seeing what they can develop into, you've substantially strengthened your roster. If Engel jumps out to a .775 OPS next year we're suddenly looking at a really valuable player. Would you put "Tim Tebow" in the top 5 of "guys with a nonzero chance of helping out this team long term" from that list? If you don't think he can help this team long term, then play the guys you have and see if someone turns themselves into a big leaguer. Great post. Only way I'm entertaining the thought of signing him is if I truly believe in him as a baseball player, believe him to be an upgrade over another player and can help the team win. But the same goes for anyone NOT named Tim Tebow. Honestly, he's shown some flashes--people viewing him as a legitimate baseball player aren't too far off their rocker--even with the small sample size.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 02:00 PM) There's been a 50% boost in ticket sales at the A-ball level for the Mets this year. Those tickets are $15 for GA, with 2 drinks and 2 hot dogs included on their Tuesday promotion according to the googling I just did (kids get in free!). Altogether that's been the equivalent of about 40,000 extra tickets sold for their A-ball team. The difference is nonzero, but it's not going to "Sell out 10 games" and it would probably be less in the big leagues where costs are higher and where you've already heard of a number of the players - Tebow is likely the only player on that team that most of those new guests have heard of, which would not be the case in the big leagues. I could buy it being worth several thousand extra ticket sales over the course of a month. But an extra 20,000 tickets a game and 200k over 10 games to see a guy who, although he's been better than I thought he'd be, is currently no where near a major league caliber player? OK at least we have some numbers to look at...of course the entertainment scale for minor league games is seriously stretched if Tim Tebow tips the scales. But let's be honest...in the minors, he's up against Jake the Diamond Dog, and the Zooperstars. A real life person that people know playing in the game maybe just be enough to bring people out. However in the majors...I think people are there to see real MLB players and stars from around the league--our guys--Abreu, Moncada and the studs on opposing teams--Lindor, Machado, Bryant, Harper, Trout, Judge, etc... Now the world is certainly upside down, but If I had $50 to spend on a MLB ticket in Chicago, I'd rather pay to see Mike Trout play baseball than Tim Tebow. But then again...I may never have $50 to begin with..............

QUOTE (AJUribe @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 01:05 PM) Theoretically speaking if Tebow played 10 home games in September do all 10 sell out? I'd say 1-3. Also at the same time you would be helping divisional teams sellout road games if he were on the club. Maybe I'm alone, but I doubt Tebow would make any impact on ticket sales. Aside from the handful of teenage girls who have a poster of him in their room--I just don't see the draw factor coming into play. LeBron maybe? Tebow? I'm not sure he was good enough, long enough to draw measurable interest.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 7, 2017 -> 07:05 PM) I'm usually all for grabbing guys with some talent when there is little risk beyond the occupied roster spot, but uh...I'm not seeing a ton of talent with this guy. He wasn't really a physical tools guy out of the draft but instead a highly polished hitter, but the polish seems to have worn off. Sure looks like it...but it kind of forces the question...why? Is it something fixable? Instructional staff voices not registering? Stuck in the minors killing his motivation? Issues fitting in with teammates? Bad host family?? Crazy Ex-Girlfriend not going away? So many possibilities...many non baseball possibilities. It's a half scratched lotto ticket with 2-like symbols already showing--why not scratch off the last of it to see if something clicks? Diamonds are in the rough--but you gotta go through the rough to find them.

Tebow's a good guy and all...but our minor league guys are generating enough buzz as it is to put us on the map again. I'm already excited about the guys we have and those who are about to get their shot. Best of luck to Tim Tebow though--he's a good athlete and I hope he gets another shot to show it at the top level.

I know guys on here don't like the bunt but it's important that we learn how to excecute bunts to keep opposing defenses aware that we can get them down. For years the bunt skill wasn't used by Robin to appease the metrics people, but what that did was it made the defense not honor it--and therefore defend us easier. I think once you see us PROVE that we CAN bunt...the rate of the attempts will drop dramatically. Good teams are good in all areas of the game--having the tool in your box does no good until you can prove you can use it whenever you need it. We're truly at ground zero in relearning the game!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 31, 2017 -> 09:42 AM) Think of it this way, if the White Sox were in contention, and they traded for Miguel Gonzalez, or Derek Holland or Mike Pelfrey or Tyler Clippard and gave up anything better than Courtney Hawkins, how pissed would you be? And how much would you question the White Sox braintrust sanity thinking these were guys that could get them over the top? Yeah, a return of value is far from likely...but that's probably what the Padres thought with Shields. Their "lotto ticket" turned out to be a top 100. My biggest thing is whether I ride guys like Holland or want to start to use my young arms in a meaningless stretch of games. Would you want those pitches on Holland's record or on your young arms? There's an argument for both.

I think we all need to ground ourselves with our expectations because it's easy to see that some people here are still high on landing top 10/top 50 prospects. We all just need to remember that typically, it takes A LOT for those higher level players to even be considered in deals. It takes a Sale/Quintana type player or a significant package of great/controllable talent to get GMs to loosen their grip on those top level players. But since acquiring them has somewhat become the norm for us--we're left searching for that same high with guys like Frazier and Swarzak when we need to sit back a little and think about the scale more realistically. I know it's exciting, but the big top-prospect acquisitions are likely over--we were able to squeeze one more out by packaging several players to NY, but the firework show is about to thin out in a major way because we're out of the big names that would actually acquire such high-level prospects now. Our system is absolutely loaded and we were not likely to acquire a difference making prospect or one that would even crack our top 10 for Swarzak or Melky or any SP that we have left to deal. The thrill seekers can get excited if Abreu or Rodon names start to come up, but I just don't see that happening now. But...just because a prospect is not ranked high now doesn't mean he can't become that. If we get someone--it's because our guys have watched him a lot and seen something they think they can either use now or develop. That's what we have in Cordell and that's not a bad thing. High-ceiling prospects are off the table in decent bullpen rental conversations. But a player like Cordell seems like a fair get.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 22, 2017 -> 10:46 AM) I don't know why everyone doesn't choke up anyway. At the very least it allows you to use a bigger bat. More wood in the hitting area. You could get closer to aluminum bat dimensions. The metrics people would probably frown on it. Bringing in the human element of the brain making an adjustment to a swing--it throws all the numbers off--gives hitters an advantage on an already pre-determined set of averages. They probably want to see the same swing taken in the same way with the same bat looking for the same result...that way you get a way more usable set of numbers and a better chance of getting the result that the equation tells you you're due for!

QUOTE (yesterday333 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 12:44 PM) everybody keeps bringing up Kelly, but what about dalvin perez? I wouldn't mind a middle infielder with high upside. I haven't seen anybody throw his name around. He seems like a nice prospect too! I agree--middle infield could use some depth if Moncada stays at 3B. I think people are high on Carson Kelly because he's such a high-end defensive catcher who can rake. The combo is RARE. What I like is he's a converted 3B--meaning he's got a little extra mileage on his knees from being somewhat new to the position. The more it sounds, they believe Collins will have every opportunity to be our primary catcher someday--but it's such an important position to have a couple guys who are capable of playing it at a high level (a position I feel we have "plugged" to some degree in the past--mostly because good catchers rarely become available). Having 2 solid catchers in the system allows you rest knees, play matchups (Collins bats left--Kelly right), and allows certain battery combinations to form good rapport (Like the Wakefield/Mirabelli combo in Boston).

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 12:02 PM) What's the reason Seattle would have soured on Tyler? His numbers seem decent enough every stop. This is the million dollar question--sometimes there is a lot more to the story that moves a team to trade someone in what seems to be a lopsided deal. Sometimes personal reasons come in to play--sometimes it's a maturity thing, wants to be closer to home--misses mommy--there's a world of human element that factors into a players' future with the team that gets blocked by the numbers.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Jul 19, 2017 -> 08:52 AM) Not sure what my favorite deal is (probably the Eaton deal considering the haul of 3 major prospects), but I don't love this NYY deal, it's confusing to me, wish JR would have ate the money thus keeping Kahnle and not having to take on Clippard, I find it hard to believe D=Rob and Frazier bring back Clarkin and Polo, D-Rob should bring back a guy on the back 50 of the Top 100 at least I think Q was the last of the big 3 Hahn could use for blue chip prospects. Once they were gone he had to try to use the value of multiple pieces to try to squeeze out another top 40ish talent and that's what he did. The NYY deal was all about Rutherford. Hahn was able to use mostly Robertson's value, Frazier's rental value and Kahnle's potential together to milk one more top piece to add to the system instead of a handful of depth pieces. But we're getting to the point where our system is 12-15 deep...you need top talent to crack into that group--depth is nice, but you need to front load top talent on your top prospects list. If you don't get that top talent piece back...the chances of a deal comprised of lower level prospects making a significant impact on the rebuild is lower. For Boston, only Devers could crack that group of ours...maybe Groome, but Boston probably got outbid by NY simply because NY was willing to add the bigger name into the deal. It's really a good deal for both teams.

Here's what I'm hoping happened. Sox/Red Sox agreed on a Frazier deal pending physicals. Yanks (who have had interest in Frazier) placed a call to discuss a corresponding move--likely DRob and found out that our deal hit a snag. Then immediately started inquiring about adding Frazier to a DRob deal to help them instead and to block him from going to Boston. SO...instead of simply picking a different prospect from Boston and completing the deal, we switched our focus to the Yankees, who I believe have a MUCH more attractive prospect situation with who they have and the upcoming roster crunch they are facing. That's why the talk has calmed down on the Boston side of things and other names are starting to come into play (Lowrie) for them. I'm crossing my fingers HARD in hopes we can land a couple of players from the Yankees system. To get DRob, some of those names are already in play in talks...I just like that situation much better for us. Maybe I'm on an island.

QUOTE (ChiSox1917 @ Jul 18, 2017 -> 09:40 AM) We're not getting Devers You are correct! Crazy to think someone everyone is so high on (and rightfully so...) wouldn't crack our top 3 prospects according to some.

Crazy to think that according to MLB.com rankings, Rafael Devers would be our 4th best prospect. (!?!?) (Moncada-1, Jimenez-8, Kopech-11, Devers-12).

Well you know this...the Tigers and other AL central teams HAVE to be looking around at what we are doing and are trying to figure out how they are going to slow this down for us. They could be looking at several years of getting beat as the alternative to standing pat. The Tigers have 2 big reasons to sell....1. They are not in the race. 2. They better do something or they are going to be irrelevant for a while when our guys hit their stride.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 17, 2017 -> 01:11 PM) Remember when Billy Beane was THE GM? Yes...until Moneyball came out it seems! I've often wondered if that movie was really put together by the A's PR team to show everyone just how NOT crazy they are and to build fan faith and hold the people's interest in their "process"--because they KNEW it was going to be a HOT MESS for years. But then again...I get to thinking...Brad Pitt starred and he's WAY too big of a name for Beane to shell out $ for. How's that for Drakegate?? Beanegate maybe?? And speaking of LaRoche...I'm SURE he was on Beane's radar after posting a .401 OBP in his short stint with Atlanta in 2009...Coincidence? YOU be the judge....

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jul 17, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) The makeup concerns surrounding Groome only get more pronounced since his dad was arrested recently on serious charges. I'm not sure about him anymore. I hear ya...sometimes that stuff manifests itself and causes more harm than good. Maybe it's not Groome--but it would be interesting if we added a bullpen piece to see what the return would bump to. Honestly I'd rather our "added value" propositions be focused on a deal with the Yankees. I like their prospects so much better.